Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
He gave the police his name
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostNo need, I've already calculated it.
It's 99.9%."Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pcdunn View PostAdmin has indicated that Pierre hasn't really broken any rules of the forum, besides annoy people with his/her insufferable attitude of "I know something you don't know!", and I think this is true, having been here long enough to see a few personal attacks which were of banning quality. (Remember the poster who had an obsession with the correct spelling of British English words?)
I think Casebook has lately become less about finding the identity of Jack the Ripper, and more about finding the identity of Pierre the Poster.
I will admit I share John G.'s curiousity about Pierre's motivations, but I think we need to perhaps start a boycott of his threads, and ignore his posts in other threads. Trying to debate him, joking about him, etc., isn't working-- so let's simply stop responding.Last edited by SuspectZero; 01-03-2016, 11:05 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostSuspiciously like Prater's cat, Diddles, 'cept Diddles was black so,
.....oh, silly me, of course...Diddles in disguise, with stripes on!
(Sounds almost like a Beatles song)
Prater caught him that night sneaking in a few minutes later after MJK's scream!
Those cats in 1888 were vicious animals!
At midnight they become WERECATS!“If I cannot bend heaven, I will raise hell.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostToday I have been examining a data source from 1888. I have been looking at this very briefly before and I thought there was nothing specific about this source. But I made an analysis of it today - and it contains the full name of the person I think was the killer.
Failing that, I'd be interested to see an explanation of the methodology you propose to use when subjecting this letter to a statistical analysis.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SuspectZero View PostI've been following these many postings by Pierre and the reactions of various people to them. Pat's suggestion is the best one. If you want to change his behavior, you need to modify your approach to dealing with it. Right now he's thriving on the attention he gets for being so vague. I suggest you ignore his open ended postings and if and when he has something meaningful to say that we can examine, we can respond appropriately. Right now some people are hanging on his every posting.
Comment
-
I'm immune from having to boycott Pierre's threads because I'm supposedly on his ignore list so it doesn't matter how much I post in them.
That being so, it is worth noting that, in the OP, Pierre added a further false representation to his growing list of false representations. He said that a data source from 1888:
"contains the full name of the person I think was the killer".
Predictably, this turns out to be untrue. Had it not been for Steve directly asking if this name was supposed to be written in "metaphorical language" I wonder if Pierre would ever have told us.
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostI'm immune from having to boycott Pierre's threads because I'm supposedly on his ignore list so it doesn't matter how much I post in them.
That being so, it is worth noting that, in the OP, Pierre added a further false representation to his growing list of false representations. He said that a data source from 1888:
"contains the full name of the person I think was the killer".
Predictably, this turns out to be untrue. Had it not been for Steve directly asking if this name was supposed to be written in "metaphorical language" I wonder if Pierre would ever have told us.
Comment
-
[QUOTE=Pierre;366686]Originally posted by Rosemary View Post
I will give you the probability that my interpretation is wrong.
Regards, PierreG U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostI probably should have mentioned that one needs to factor in an allowable margin of error in my calculation of 0.1%.G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
Comment